Even seemingly mundane choices in the writing process can have serious implications. Writers choose between gendered pronouns when writing in English; philosophically, the selection of these parts of speech is politically potent.

Some philosophers contend that by substituting “she” for “he” in invoking an abstract moral agent, we’ve solved a basic problem of feminism in philosophical writing. Or, at the very least, we’ve followed the APA guidelines for political correctness. In either case, the idea is that “she” automatically ushers in all the ladies who are excluded through the writing of the G.O.W.P. (Great Old White Philosophers). Poor Kant, if only he had chosen “she” instead of “he,” he would have revealed the feminist potential of his universalistic ethics.

Language itself can and does exclude. But using feminine pronouns is a lame attempt at being politically correct, not a serious effort to engage social inequalities. I will never, when critiquing Aristotle, use “she” instead of “he” as if this divests a philosophical system of its “sexism.” Mere “inclusion” by way of pronouns does not change power networks. “She” remains the neutered universal “he” of old precisely because it “includes” indiscriminately, as if lived experience, corporeality, ethnicity and class do not matter. Inclusion itself is a political problem in writing that often reads out politically potent difference; I’d rather forge alternative political ontologies through the economies of written discourses. Examples of this approach are found in the fundamental subversions of language employed by writers like Monique Wittig and Luce Irigiray.

The upshot: as much as we all adore him, Spinoza did not like women, and women cannot “fit” into his philosophical system just by changing pronouns. Ironically, his political ontology has radical feminist potential, but that does not involve grafting the “she” anachronistically and mindlessly onto his writing. When Spinoza wrote the “essence of man” he meant – albeit unwittingly, perhaps – the “essence of man.”

Again, why would women want to “fit” into a man-made hole in language or philosophical thinking, anyway? As if all we strive for is to fit into the shoes of the Man–same exploitative position, different genders makes it equal and good? Just because the product says “she” doesn’t mean it’s “feminist.” Just because the product says “Yes, we can” doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society, whatever the ahistorical, neoconservative hell that is. When crafting feminist subversions, let’s venture beyond the superficiality of language and engage the deeper relationship between political realities and writing.